Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Logical validity requires that premises be relevant to the conclusion they support

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Classical logic's material conditional 'A → B' is truth-functional and has proven indispensable in mathematics and science without relevance constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Restricting entailment to relevant premises would invalidate ex falso quodlibet, undermining the consistency proofs that ground formal systems like Peano Arithmetic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The theoretical cost of abandoning monotonicity—which relevance logic requires—exceeds any gain, since paraconsistency can be achieved by less revisionary means.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Lewis and Langford's strict implication shows that necessary truths are entailed by any proposition, making irrelevance in modal contexts not a defect but a feature of necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If relevance is a pragmatic constraint on assertion rather than a semantic condition on validity, then Grice's maxims already handle apparent irrelevance without revising logic itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If X and A together entail B, then X must be relevant to A
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Premise combination should be restricted so that adding irrelevant material Y does not preserve a valid deduction
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.